-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Any Photographers Out There?
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
I have a picture you might like to buy.
There are some of my pictures of my photo essay of one of my best Zen gardens on my facebook photo album. You will have to through it along pictures of me in drag in my Burlesque act, puppies, dogs, flowers etc. I may post some photos here later. Frank Doonan facebook page.
FAKE NEWS!I have a picture you might like to buy.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I enjoy photography quite a bit and I've recently let the 35mm bug bit me. I find all the mechanizations required to capture a moment in time extremely satisfying and rewarding.
I view most modern photography with a skeptical slant-eye...
I feel like lots of people buy really expensive cameras and then think they are professional photographers because they combine 4,857 images of a flower in a high-powered photo editing software and that produces a pretty good image of a flower... The problem is, a toddler could have taken the base photo. There's no skill involved when you're relying on external software to make your crap images look good... you know what I'm saying? It's just not the same world.
I feel the same way about people with over-filtered selfies as their profile pictures who listen to auto-tuned music.
I know I sound like a grumpy old man. But there's something to be said for actually knowing how to use the right lighting and film types to capture the desired image. And not only that, being part of an actual moment in time that was saturated with actual light features and real shadow effects helps to enhance the memory of the moment, which is what I feel photography was meant to do in the first place.
I view most modern photography with a skeptical slant-eye...
I feel like lots of people buy really expensive cameras and then think they are professional photographers because they combine 4,857 images of a flower in a high-powered photo editing software and that produces a pretty good image of a flower... The problem is, a toddler could have taken the base photo. There's no skill involved when you're relying on external software to make your crap images look good... you know what I'm saying? It's just not the same world.
I feel the same way about people with over-filtered selfies as their profile pictures who listen to auto-tuned music.
I know I sound like a grumpy old man. But there's something to be said for actually knowing how to use the right lighting and film types to capture the desired image. And not only that, being part of an actual moment in time that was saturated with actual light features and real shadow effects helps to enhance the memory of the moment, which is what I feel photography was meant to do in the first place.
I'm a serious hobbyist. This is one I shot this past spring using a professional 70-300mm lens. I do everything in manual focus, such as below to pinpoint the area of focus. I mainly shoot in aperture priority to control the depth of field, as below. I do nothing in post-production, such as Adobe Lightroom. I'm a bit of a religious purist that way, not that minor tweaks aren't ok. Photography is a meditative experience for me.
Yes, I am a photographer.
Have been for years, both professionally and as a hobby.
I post some of my stuff on my facebook page.
No, I am not sharing my real name or facebook page with you. Maybe I'll post a few to the RF media page...I really haven't looked in there for a long time, and don't really know what it does/is for.
I would be interested in seeing some of your work!Yes, I am a photographer.
Have been for years, both professionally and as a hobby.
I post some of my stuff on my facebook page.
No, I am not sharing my real name or facebook page with you. Maybe I'll post a few to the RF media page...I really haven't looked in there for a long time, and don't really know what it does/is for.
Great looking shot!
Nice phlox!
I use adobe photoshop elements on mine, to do as you call them "minor tweaks."
The digital age has created a new artform, in my opinion--a new media for presenting art, and a new set of tools for creating that art. A friend/former co-worker started using photoshop from the earliest versions to create some truly amazing images--much more interesting to me than her paintings, and she is a very talented painter.
I don't personally want to do the kinds of things she has done with her photography, but making adjustments to the exposure with photoshop is little different than shooting the pictures using different filters and lightings, etc., or dodging, burning, and using filters in the darkroom. in my opinion.
As with any tool, its availability results in lots of people without a lot of training or education in its use using the tool. I don't think that's a bad thing--more people can and should benefit from engaging the arts, even if they will never, ever be a 'professional.'
I caught a Rangifer tarandus in scientific terms or one I should say related to the tarandus in mid flight. Now for you scientific illiterates that reindeer. Ok I actually didn't take the shot. I received the shot with the theory that flying reindeer actually do exist. Some have inferred that it is actually leaping off a Bank but no scientific evidence exists. Why I am open to that possibility but since it does not exist in this case I can't consider it science. I would say the burden of proof in this instance is required!! My thought is that they appeared when Europeans came to the states celebrated Christmas and some where left behind. So sad we don't k ow if santa was being cruel or it was some accident. Anyway new species I call it Rangifer tardis in honor of my favorite scientist Dr. Who.
It is pretty easy to spot what photos are good/bad based on their composition. You can take an amateur photographer with $20k in the camera bag and put them up against Ansel Adams with his large format equipment, they will get smoked every time. A large part of photography is having that vision, right? Regardless of how you vision comes to manifest, what is important is the image is well executed and has some sort of medium.
Example:
You cannot look at this image and say it isn't beautiful. The lighting, subject, background, and overall composition is top notch. But it is still a flower and a toddler can do this, right? Highly doubt it. The subject does not dictate the quality of a photo. Flowers are popular because it allows amateurs an opportunity to shoot a visually appealing subject while learning the technical details to photography.
I agree, and I think it is very easy to spot who has that knowledge and who doesn't. I am a part of a community that regularly does photo critiques. Some of the stuff that comes across my desk is horrid and yet they have a Canon 1D Mark II, a $6400 camera! At the same time, I see folks taking pictures with an IPhone 5 that blows them out! A big part of that is that vision and having the technical ability to make it work.
Now, with that said... does crap like this get me?
Or maybe this...
Oh yeah... this is junk. Crap. It is over processed and, to me, it is painfully obvious.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I do take photos, and since I am now retired, perhaps I will be able to pursue the hobby. I don't have an Instagram or Pinterest page.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
It is pretty easy to spot what photos are good/bad based on their composition. You can take an amateur photographer with $20k in the camera bag and put them up against Ansel Adams with his large format equipment, they will get smoked every time. A large part of photography is having that vision, right? Regardless of how you vision comes to manifest, what is important is the image is well executed and has some sort of medium.
Example:
You cannot look at this image and say it isn't beautiful. The lighting, subject, background, and overall composition is top notch. But it is still a flower and a toddler can do this, right? Highly doubt it. The subject does not dictate the quality of a photo. Flowers are popular because it allows amateurs an opportunity to shoot a visually appealing subject while learning the technical details to photography.
I agree, and I think it is very easy to spot who has that knowledge and who doesn't. I am a part of a community that regularly does photo critiques. Some of the stuff that comes across my desk is horrid and yet they have a Canon 1D Mark II, a $6400 camera! At the same time, I see folks taking pictures with an IPhone 5 that blows them out! A big part of that is that vision and having the technical ability to make it work.
Now, with that said... does crap like this get me?
Or maybe this...
Oh yeah... this is junk. Crap. It is over processed and, to me, it is painfully obvious.
I agree that composition is important. Can you now explain to others who read this exactly why the photos you have called out are bad photos, instead of just putting them in a broad "bad composition" bucket?
Certainly! And it has nothing to do with the composition. In fact, the composition in these two are pretty good! (Maybe I should have been clearer.) The photos in question have been what I like to call "over processing". That is, they have had the editor use software to edit them in such a way that they are no longer accurate representations of what was photographed.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I enjoy photography. Especially finding interesting ways to capture things that people see all the time to the point they don't notice, things you get to photograph just by being in the right place at the right time with the right weather conditions. I also enjoy playing around with digital editing. I have a sample of some of my photos here in a media folder.
[GALLERY=media, 8334]So pretty... by Shadow Wolf posted Sep 16, 2017 at 8:48 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8341]Another King by Shadow Wolf posted Sep 16, 2017 at 8:48 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 8339]Sequoia Trees by Shadow Wolf posted Sep 16, 2017 at 8:48 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 7998]My guitar by Shadow Wolf posted Apr 25, 2017 at 8:26 PM[/GALLERY]
[GALLERY=media, 7895]Downtown Squirrel. by Shadow Wolf posted Mar 5, 2017 at 10:18 PM[/GALLERY]
I just posted an album in Media of a few of my photos from the past few months. Not sure how to link, but...
Albums for user: beenherebeforeagain | Religious Forums
Albums for user: beenherebeforeagain | Religious Forums
We've got all sorts of cameras in my house. My quest is to find the best "pocket-able" camera I can find. What I really want is a camera I don't think anyone will build, and that is a compact camera with:
- 1" or bigger sensor
- no more than 20m pixels
- manual controls
- 70-300mm zoom (or something like that)
I specifically want a compact "wildlife" camera. It seems to me that a 70-300 lens ought to be better quality than a 25-300 lens, and I'm willing to lose the wide shots for higher quality telephoto shots... sigh... just a dream
- 1" or bigger sensor
- no more than 20m pixels
- manual controls
- 70-300mm zoom (or something like that)
I specifically want a compact "wildlife" camera. It seems to me that a 70-300 lens ought to be better quality than a 25-300 lens, and I'm willing to lose the wide shots for higher quality telephoto shots... sigh... just a dream
The potential problem with wildlife photography is you need a fast lens. A 70-300 isn't very useful if the best aperture you can squeeze out of it is F6.3. There are cameras called "bridge cameras" which basically do what you want. The lenses aren't very fast nor is it pocketable, but it is an all-in-one package. There are some excellent pocket options that have a 1" sensor, manual controls, etc. But they don't have the reach you want (See: Sony RX 100 V).